Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2020) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 1531–1537

30th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM2021)

15-18 June 2021, Athens, Greece.
A novel approach to improve maintenance operations
S. Ferreira1, L. Martins1, F. J. G. Silva1,*, R. B. Casais1, R. D. S. G. Campilho1, J. C. Sá1
a
ISEP – School of Enginnering, Polytechnic of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 431, Porto 4200-072, Portugal
b
IPVC – School of Business Sciences, Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Av. Pinto da Mota, Valença 4930-600, Portugal

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 228340500; fax: ++228321159. E-mail address: fgs@isep.ipp.pt

Abstract

In a market constantly changing and more demanding, the need to have any production cycle working without flaws is more important than ever.
Thus, maintenance operations have taken an increasingly important role. However, different organizations may take different approaches
depending on their area of business, legal aspects, as well as the company policy. Even though some concepts such as Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) and quality tools are normally used in most of the companies, there are no standard procedures or defined ways for using
them across industries. Thus, it is usual many organizations implement statistical tests in order to see whether or not those improvements were
successful. This paper intends to establish a procedure to be used across organizations, improving their maintenance procedures. This procedure
establishes the correct sequence of tools to be used in the improvement process, conducting the maintenance operations to a higher level of
efficiency and effectiveness, allowing to determine if the implemented improvements were successful, or if a different approach needs to be
implemented.

© 2020The
© 2020 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
This is an
This is anopen
openaccess
access article
article under
under the BY-NC-ND
the CC CC BY-NC-NDlicenselicense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the FAIM FAIM 2021.
2020.

Keywords: Maintenance, TPM, Maintenance tools, Total Productive Maintenance, Maintenance improvement, Maintenance efficiency.

1. Introduction This paper is divided into five sections. After this

Introduction, the Literature review describes previous works as
Over the last few years, the need for a continuous flow in support to this one, the Methods describe the approach, the
production, as well as very well-planned operations are taking Results show how the model can work applied to a case study
an increasingly key role in industrial organizations, and this is and Conclusion highlight the main ideas brought by this work.
not only applicable for production operations. Indeed,
maintenance operations are extremely important to increase the 2. Literature review
efficiency of operations inside the organizations [1]. Therefore,
the improvement of maintenance operations can be a significant 2.1. Maintenance and its improvement
way to increase the economical results of an organization.
Regarding this context, this paper intends to elaborate a Maintenance is defined as all the operations required to
model to plan, execute and evaluate maintenance procedures in restore an equipment to perform the task it was intended to do
an organization, analyzing the initial status and drawing a set of [2]. It can be divided into either Proactive or Reactive
actions to be implemented in order to improve its efficiency. maintenance. Proactive maintenance is defined as any
Also this paper illustrates that through the use of KPI’s and maintenance operations performed before the failure occurs.
Statistical tests, it can be assessed whether or not the changes On the other hand, Reactive maintenance occurs just after the
implemented resulted in good or bad results. equipment has failure. Fig. 1 shows a breakdown of these two
methodologies (Adapted from [3]). It is clear that, given the
2351-9789 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an©open
2351-9789 2020 access article
The Authors. under the
Published CC BY-NC-ND
by Elsevier Ltd. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
This is an openunder
access responsibility of the
article under the CC scientific
BY-NC-ND committee
license of the FAIM 2021.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.213
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the FAIM 2020.
1532 S. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 1531–1537
2 S. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2020) 000–000
current state of the markets in different industries and services,
a proactive approach is always preferred [4,5], avoiding
unexpected production stoppages, which can compromise the
delivery time agreed with the market. Moreover, in some cases,
the complete failure of the equipment can cause parallel
failures, increasing the cost and the downtime, again with
serious repercussion in the production sector.
Proactive or Planned
Maintenance
Fig.1. Different types of maintenance (Adapted from [3])
The improvement of maintenance tasks, although widely
done in most organizations, they do not follow a single,
conductive guideline. Some authors have given different
perspectives on how to achieve these results. Ahmad et al. [6]
uses the Total Productive Maintenance, TPM, methodology for
improving the Overall Equipment Effectiveness, OEE, in a
manufacturing process on the textile industry, with an
improvement close to 10% on OEE. Morimoto et al. [7] on the
other hand, have developed a Condition Based Maintenance
model, CBM, for maintenance improvements, on sensors
present on ticket gates and while the results were positive, it
was also concluded that further testing in different equipment
would be required. In turn, Pinto et al. [8] applied some Lean
tools, such as SMED and 5S in a company dedicated to the
manufacture of rubber components for the automotive industry,
time saved 11% in the time of setup in a sector of rubber
injectors. After that, it implemented the indictors required by
the IATF 16949: 2016 standard [9], namely MTBF, MTTR and
OEE, verifying that the now calculated OEE stood at 90.22%,
which is above the 85% recommended as a minimum standard
and worldwide reference by Nakajima [10]. With a completely
different approach, Guariente et al. [11] essentially used
Autonomous Maintenance as a tool to improve the availability
of equipment in a production line of aluminum tubes for air
conditioning in motor vehicles. The implementation of
Autonomous Maintenance brought an increase of 10% in the
availability of equipment and an improvement of 8% in the
OEE (Overal Equipment Efficiency) of this line, significantly
improving the responsiveness of this line to market demand. In
parallel, there was also an increase in MTBF (Mean Time
Between Failures) and a reduction in MTTR (Mean Time To
Repair), as a consequence of work standardization and greater
daily attention to equipment. On the other hand, in a work
performed in the printing industry, Moreira et al. [12] modified
the calibration of the printing machines, reduced the use of
polluting materials, introduced new washing and cleaning
programs in the equipment and started to use a new dryer
activator to reduce the need for maintenance interventions. As
a result, it managed to increase the OEE of the equipment under
study by 2 to 4%, reduced non-compliant products by 32.9%,
increased the MTBF and reduced the MTTR of the equipment,
while also reducing the usual setup time for those equipment.
Moreover, the products now used in the equipment are more
environmentally friendly. Still using different methodologies
from those previously described, Santos et al. [13] studied an
APEX equipment used in the manufacture of some of the
components used in the tire industry, which presented a
concerning number of stoppages, affecting the entire
productive sector. To improve this situation, automation of
conveyor and tray movements between the cutting and
application sub-processes was used. At the same time, the 5S
methodology was implemented, improving maintenance
operations. The process of cutting and separating the tire bead
was automated and the safety devices were revised. All of this
resulted in a 62% reduction in downtime, an improvement in
setup times and a reduction in the energy consumed by the
equipment, thus contributing to a cleaner and more sustainable
process [14]. A similar approach was carried out by Santos et
al. [15], which completely resigned a conduit transport system
along a Bowden cables manufacturing machine for the
automotive industry, thus eliminating most of the problems that
caused equipment stops, and also improving equipment setup
time by 97%. Based on a simple concept, the system also
allows its application to previously manufactured equipment,
i.e., to update previous equipment, significantly improving its
performance in production.
2.2. Maintenance KPI
One of the most helpful tools to verify the performance of
any system or process, is the usage of Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs). Regarding maintenance, the KPI’s mostly
used are the Mean Time Between Failures, or MTBF, Mean
Time to Repair, or MTTR and OEE. However, the
establishment of performance indicators reached such a degree
of importance, that a specific standard was drafted containing
the indicators that, in a generic way, could be applied to
different industrial sectors, and which assumed the designation:
BS EN 15341: 2007 [16]. Although OEE can also be used to
assess the production status, it can be a very helpful KPI for
maintenance. However, this KPI by itself, does not show the
entire picture. Ferreira et al. [17] created a two phase KPI
which can be adapted to different time frames and also includes
cost, time and number of operations done in that time frame,
which also takes into account the production in said time
period. The practice of developing new KPIs has been
relatively systematic. Gonzalez et al. [18] developed several
KPIs with a view to parameterizing the operation and
maintenance of wind farms. This study resulted from a
consultation of a large number of companies in the sector who
considered these KPIs to be useful for assessing the
performance of their operation and their businesses. On the
other hand, and in order to articulate the maintenance function
with the production system, Muchiri et al. [19] developed a
 S. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 1531–1537
S. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2020) 000–000
framework capable of providing the necessary guidelines for
the establishment of the most convenient performance
indicators, allowing the assessment of the vital processes and
operations of each company to end up being properly
monitored, thus preserving the alignment of objectives between
the production function and the maintenance.
2.3. PDCA Cycle
The PDCA cycle is a versatile tool that can be used in the
main industrial applications, especially ones where creation
and improvement of a process is the main goal [20,21]. It
follows four steps which are named “Plan”, “Do”, “Check” and
“Act” [20]. Although the PDCA cycle is commonly used to
solve quality problems, it is also often used as an engine for
continuous improvement processes and can be applied to
production processes or other operations, such as maintenance.
Rosa et al. [22] were faced with the need to improve the
productivity and quality of final products manufactured on a
production line of Bowden cables for the automotive industry.
To this end, they relied on a PDCA cycle in which they
integrated some Lean tools, such as VSM, among others.
Through the different stages of the cycle, it was producing,
analyzing and improving solutions, which resulted in a final
41% increase in productivity, requiring only a small
investment, which was amortized over four months. Agostinho
et al. [23] developed a sustainability assessment procedure for
operations and production processes. It was found that in
addition to the PDCA cycle being able to provide a diagnosis
on the evaluation of a set of processes and operations linked to
a production process, it also allows to support the decisions to
be taken by the top management of organizations. Thus, the
PDCA cycle can be perfectly adapted to continuous
improvement processes to be applied to maintenance
operations.
2.4. Quality tools
A set of seven quality tools was defined by Ishikawa Kaoru.
These tools can be used from measuring the state of process to
possible causes and effects [24]. For the purposes of this paper,
the tools that will have a bigger emphasis are the Pareto’s
Diagram and the Ishikawa’s Diagram. A Pareto’s Diagram is a
tool created by Vilfredo Pareto, to analyze who had the most
amount of land in Italy, where he discovered that around 20%
of people owned 80% of the land. This principle can also be
used for assessing priorities on a process [25]. An Ishikawa’s
Diagram is a tool that allows to correlate possible causes to a
possible effect. It places causes from different sources, whether
they are technical or human, to a certain effect [24]. Ishikawa
diagrams have been used frequently to identify the root causes
of certain problems that seem complicated to solve. Tavares et
al. [26] used the Ishikawa diagram to identify the root causes
of a fabric bleaching problem in the textile industry, isolated
the problem and found the solution to significantly improve the
process. Neves et al. [27] used the Ishikawa Diagram, thus
identifying which problems were affecting the Weaving
process in the manufacture of trimmings in the textile sector.
On the other hand, Silva et al. [29] also used the Ishikawa’s
1533
3
Diagram to mitigate the problems of lack of surface quality in
parts injected in Zamak that needed to exhibit high quality
standards, because they are aesthetic parts. This study allowed
to identify which variables of the high-pressure die-casting
process needed to be closely monitored, allowing the
implementation of an experiment plan and the optimization of
parameters.
2.5. Statistical tests
There is a set of statistical tests which can perform analysis
to treat the existing data. Depending on the type of variables to
be analysed and what is the main goal of the analysis, the test
type can be selected. Fig. 2 shows the possible means tests [24].
3. Methods
Fig. 2. Some statistical tests for means to apply in maintenance analysis
The methodology used in this paper can be divided into four
stages. The first stage is composed by a literature review of
what different authors have concluded about the different
aspects of this subject. The second stage entailed on elaborating
a model, based on a flowchart, providing the different steps for
maintenance improvement process. The model was then
implemented regarding an existing case study in the third stage,
in order to observe how the model works. The fourth and last
stage involved the analysis and conclusions about whether the
model is valid or not to implement in cases where the
maintenance improvement is necessary.
3.1. Approach description using PDCA cycle
Any improvement process should be based on PDCA
methodology. The flowchart present in Fig. 3 shows the
process to be followed in maintenance operations
improvement. The “Plan” phase is mostly consisted of data
gathering and analysis. With this data, setting a priority sector,
production line, equipment and component will be possible. To
assess which needs to be prioritized, the usage of quality tools,
namely the ABC Diagram, also known as the Pareto’s Diagram
should be used, while the Cause-Effect Diagram, or Ishikawa’s
Diagram, should be used to assess the possible causes for the
low performance. After choosing the target for the maintenance
operations improvement, the next step is to check the current
1534 S. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 1531–1537
4 S. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2020) 000–000

maintenance plans to verify if there is anything not properly
done. These non-conformities in the procedures can be
anything, since the periodicity of the operations, to the way in
which these are performed, which can affect the correct
functioning of the equipment.
Fig.3. PDCA Cycle applied to the methodology
The “Do” phase consists in applying the knowledge
gathered from the “Plan” phase and perform the new plans
instead of the ones currently in use. This phase should take the
same time as the time frame for the data gathered. For example,
be the same as the one used to choose the sector. All the values
will be added and then placed on a percentage manner to be
placed on a graph which is shown on Fig..
Although the production costs on Line 3 are around 5%
higher than the ones on Line 2, the number of stoppages and
time spent on breakdowns is much higher on Line 2. For that
reason, Line 2 (S3L2) is the production line chosen for the
improvement implementation.
The following step would be to further analyze the
equipment present on line 2. This analysis would check the
cost, time spent and number of interventions per equipment and
component. Due to confidentiality agreements previously
performed with the entity in question, this information is not
allowed to be disclosed. However, the tools used for this
analysis involve not only the previously used Pareto’s
Diagram, but also an Ishikawa’s Diagram to assess the possible
causes for a certain breakdown or recurrent breakdown, as well
as an FMEA analysis to check the possible failure modes for
the equipment and its respective components.
80,00%
% costs
70,00%
60,00%
% time of
Percentage

if the data gathered corresponds to one month, the “Do” phase 50,00%
breakdowns
should take the same time 40,00%
After the “Do” phase is over, the “Check” phase follows. In 30,00% % time Stoppages
this phase, the data collected on the “Do” phase will be 20,00%
compared with the data collected on the “Plan” phase. These % number of
10,00%
sets of data will be compared using the “Reactive Proactive breakdowns
0,00%
Ratio” and “Maintenance Production Ratio”, or RPR and MPR
1 2 3 4 % number of
respectively, KPI’s as well as a T-test Wilcoxon. The KPI’s are
Sector Identification stoppages
first used to observe the overall impact while the T-test
Wilcoxon can be a complement to the previous analysis.
Fig. 4. Overall results for all variables analysed by sector
Lastly, on the “Act” phase, depending on the results
obtained from the “Check” phase, a decision has to be made. If
the test performed on the “Do” phase was successful, the 70,00%
current process should be replaced with the one performed on 60,00% % Production costs
that phase. If the test was not successful, the cycle must be 50,00%
Percentage

repeated, to realize what was wrong and apply any possible

40,00%
corrections.
30,00% % Time of
20,00% Breakdown and
3.2. Case study stoppages
10,00%
To evaluate the usefulness of this process, a case study was 0,00% % number of
breakdowns and
used. The data was collected from a previously done study on S3L1 S3L2 S3L3
stoppages
a food processing plant. The manufacturing plant has four Sector Line
different production sectors that, due to confidentiality
purposes will be identified with the numbers from 1 to 4. The
first step was to assess the impact of all the maintenance Fig. 5. Analysis of the results in Sector 3
operations throughout the sectors. The percentage of the total
for the variables Cost, Number of Operations and Time Spent,
is then calculated. The results can be seen in Fig., from sector 4. Results
1 to sector 4. Using the Pareto’s Principle, it can be clearly seen
that the production sector which needs to be further analyzed Given this situation, the analysis will be performed on the
and improved, is sector 3. It has the biggest value registered on production line as a whole. Table 1 presents the maintenance
all variables. The following step will be to analyze the chosen data regarding the Reactive mode and the Proactive mode.
sector, in order to evaluate the corresponding lines. The chosen Table 2 presents the production data and was collected during
sector is comprised by three production lines which will be the year of 2018.
identified by S3L1, S3L2 and S3L3. The principle applied will
 S. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 1531–1537 1535
S. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2020) 000–000 5

Table 1. Reactive and Proactive maintenance data before improvement Table 4 - Production data after improvement implementation
implementation
Month Quantity Production Production Number of
produced Time (t.u.) Cost (m.u.) Set-ups

react (m.u.)
Number of

Number of
Proactives

Proactives

proactives
react(t.u.)
Reactives

(units)
Time of

Time of
Cost of

Cost of
Month

(m.u.)
(t.u.)
1 311803,80 39 270 1 295 910 27
2 311557,66 39 239 1 294 887 25
3 304260,80 38 320 1 264 560 35
4 302680,74 38 121 1 257 993 24
1 14 265 6 503 19 1 068 22 191 5 309223,30 38 945 1 285 185 31
2 21 406 9 007 18 1 644 30 862 6 307754,40 38 760 1 279 080 30
3 19 309 6 061 28 5 262 95 803 7 305697,94 38 501 1 270 533 29
8 311279,76 39 204 1 293 732 31
4 43 900 20 349 21 2 280 57 450 9 303371,52 38 208 1 260 864 25
5 24 515 10 938 17 690 17 614 10 313836,44 39 526 1 304 358 23
6 79 1 854 38 622 21 1 464 27 801 11 310033,18 39 047 1 288 551 30
12 301053,04 37 916 1 251 228 32
7 101 2 036 39 166 22 4 770 87 447 t.u. – Time units; m.u. – Monetary units
8 45 1 363 26 859 18 4 248 77 448
9 69 2 463 47 613 23 858 15 884 The most immediate way to assess a process is through the
10 34 988 23 808 19 1 434 27 898 usage of KPI’s. In this case, the RPR and MPR are the KPI’s
11 29 849 16 024 18 582 10 600 chosen for this, since they can relate the entire process in a
12 69 1 635 33 361 20 900 17 839 single matrix. These can be calculated using the equations 1
t.u. – Time units; m.u. – Monetary units
and 2.
Table 2. Production data before improvement implementation
TRe active N Re active CRe active
Month Quantity Production Production Number of RPR = × × (1)
produced Time (t.u.) Cost (m.u.) set-ups TPr oactive N Pr oactive CPr oactive
(units)
1 218517,9 27 510 915 644 25
2 210161,6 26 458 860 868 26 TRe active+Pr oactive NRe active+Pr oactive CRe active+Pr oactive
3 271880,4 34 228 1 157 107 33 MPR = × × (2)
TPr oduction Nset −ups CPr oduction
4 206468 25 993 776 756 21
5 255453,8 32 160 929 301 31
267670,5 33 698 930 666 31
The variables T, N and C mean “Time”, “Number of
6
285987,6 36 004 1 114 306 28
operations” and “Cost”, respectively, for reactive and proactive
7
286773,9 36 103 1 222 894 28
maintenance operations as well production. These values are
8
199652,7 25 135 794 052 22
then compared with an evaluation matrix, shown in Fig.6.
9
218954,8 27 565 929 690 24
The results for these KPI’s can be seen in Table 5 and Table
10
240560,3 30 285 1 009 933 32
6. In a first glance, it can be seen that there seems to have been
11
250489,3 31 535 1 067 314 29
detected an overall improvement on the maintenance process,
12
t.u. – Time units; m.u. – Monetary units
just by assessing the KPI’s. In any case it can always be helpful
to run the statistical tests, since the KPI shows that there are no
After the improvement activities implemented, the collected changes in evaluation for some time frames despite an either
data for the different variables had to be collected. The positive or negative variation of RPR.
collected data for the maintenance process can be seen in Table
3, while the data collected for the production can be seen in
Table 4

Table 3. Maintenance data after improvement implementation

Mont Number Time Cost of Number Time of Cost of

h of of react of Proactiv proactiv
Reactives react( (m.u.) Proactiv es (t.u.) es
t.u.) es (m.u.)
1 14 210 6930 24 840 18480
2 11 121 2904 20 960 23040
3 33 1188 24948 29 812 14616
4 31 1023 40920 24 1176 27048
5 20 200 4000 25 1175 25850
6 27 648 18792 24 912 22800
7 28 644 14812 25 1175 28200
8 6 150 3450 23 966 20286
9 24 912 31920 25 1200 22800
10 9 234 8658 20 560 12880
11 17 391 12512 21 882 17640
12 36 1368 58824 28 1036 20720 Fig. 6. RPR and MPR decision matrix
t.u. – Time units; m.u. – Monetary units
1536 S. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 1531–1537
6 S. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2020) 000–000

Table 5 - RPR and MPR assessment before improvement implementation • Maintenance average is equal before and after
improvements.
Month RPR MPR Evaluation o H0: µ D=0 ; H1: µ D>0
1 0,05 0,002 Excellent
2 0,08 0,005 Excellent • Production average equal before and after improvements.
3 0,00 0,020 Very good o H0: µD=0 ; H1: µD<0
4 0,29 0,037 Reasonable
5 0,65 0,002 Reasonable
6 6,62 0,023 Reasonable
The results for this test are presented in Table 7.
7 0,88 0,094 Very bad
8 0,28 0,030 Reasonable Table 7 - Statistical test results for the before and after status
9 25,81 0,044 Bad
10 1,05 0,011 Reasonable Variables µD S T N p-value
11 3,55 0,002 Reasonable
12 11,72 0,012 Reasonable Number 24,250 24,929 3,370 11 0,006
React
Time react 541,167 711,947 2,633 11 0,023
Table 6 - RPR and MPR assessment after improvement implementation
Cost of 4136,750 17401,452 0,824 11 0,428
Month RPR MPR Evaluation react
1 0,05 0,001 Excellent Number -3,667 2,387 -5,322 11 0,000
2 0,01 0,002 Excellent Proact
3 2,84 0,004 Reasonable
Time 1125,500 1693,972 2,302 11 0,042
4 1,70 0,017 Reasonable
5 0,02 0,002 Excellent Proact
6 0,66 0,004 Reasonable Cost proact 19539,750 30467,151 2,222 11 0,048
7 0,32 0,004 Good
8 0,01 0,001 Excellent Quantity -64998,482 31939,396 -7,050 11 0,000
9 1,02 0,011 Reasonable produced
10 0,13 0,001 Excellent Production -8198,583 4021,003 -7,063 11 0,000
11 0,25 0,002 Very Good
Time
12 4,82 0,011 Reasonable
Production -303195,833 141482,379 -7,424 11 0,000
There may be situations where the assessment will give the Cost
same KPI results when comparing these time frames. In that
case, the usage of statistical tests will help make a correct From the obtained results, all the variables analyzed,
assessment. The statistical tests to be performed will see if the excepting the cost of reactive have suffered significant
average value of the variables analyzed for the operations has changes. By assessing both the results for the KPI and
changed in a significant manner. The statistical tests will Statistical test, it can be stated that the results of the
evaluate the variables, using the pre-improvement data as a improvement implementation are positive, the H1 hypotheses is
control. The test to be performed will be a T-test for paired accepted as the result.
samples, also known as T-test Wilcoxon. These tests were
performed using IBM SPSS®. Each variable is paired with its 5. Discussion and comparison of results
respective before and after improvement data. Two different
hypothesis tests have to be evaluated, as follows: Comparing this methodology with Ahmad et al. [6], the
1. Cost, time and number of reactive and proactive usage of RPR and MPR instead of the OEE to measure
maintenance actions has decreased after improvements; maintenance performance is a lot more complete, since other
2. Cost, time and quantity produced has increased. factors may affect the evolution of OEE results, such as the
The purpose of the improvements is to diminish the reactive quality of the manufacturing process. In addition, both MPR
actions, so these have to be shown to have decreased. Ideally, and RPR are quite simple to use and adaptable in both time
these have to be followed by an increase of proactive actions frame applicable and on the scale for their evaluation. Gonzalez
that prevent reactive actions. With these two in action, it is et al. [18] KPIs created for maintenance can be helpful if the
expected to have an increase in cost, time and quantity result of the improvement implementation is not successful,
produced, since the production line will have more available since some of the KPIs assessed can be helpful in filling the
time for production. The test value is calculated according to gaps that MPR and RPR cannot fill by themselves such as the
the equation 3, budget complaince.
Also, Morimoto et al. [7] despite being possible to detect
positive results using CBM methodology, did not use the aid of
XD
T= (3) statistical tests, which should have possible given a deeper
S/ N insight to the results obtained.
On the other hand, the approach used by Pinto et al. [8] of
where T is the test value, XD is the sample’s average, S is the using SMED and 5S should be considered on the “Plan” stage
standard deviation of the test and N the number of months on of the methodology explained in this paper since they
this test. These tests are to be performed with a 95% confidence correspond to actions that can influence the performance of
interval. The hypotheses tests are maintenance operations. Also, the autonomous maintenance
approach used by Guariente et.al [11] can also be a used as an
 S. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 1531–1537
S. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2020) 000–000
improvement on maintenance at an initial stage of the process
improvement. Furthermore, although Moreira et al. approach
mostly focused on the calibration of manufacturing equipment,
which was not covered by this paper, it is definitely something
that can be considered also on the “Plan” stage and executed on
the “Do” stage, as long as it does not affect the manufacturing
process in a negative way.
6. Conclusions
Given the results achieved, it can be stated that the model
proposed through this work has achieved its purpose of
assessing any possible improvement activities on a
maintenance process. The utilization of both a KPI and the
Statistical tests has also shown that the analyses complement
each other, but based on their simplicity: the KPI, making it
easy to use, and the precision of the Statistical test, which can
be a deciding tool when there may have too close results.
Although not shown here, due to confidentiality reasons, the
elaboration of a Cause and Effect Analysis and FMEA are very
important in order to evaluate where the failures may be
coming from. Using that way, it can be seen where the real
concerns may be coming from. PDCA remains a very useful
tool every time it is needed to proceed to improvements. In this
case, PDCA was the base of the model. Furthermore, the usage
of KPI’s, such as the MTBF and MTTR, can also help during
the “Check” part of the process, as they can provide further data
concerning the operations in place. This improvement strategy
can be stated as an increase of revenue for any organization that
has to deal with these types of operations.
Although this implementation resulted in an improvement
of the process, whether or not this happens, it’s not the model
main objective. Its goal has been to merely illustrate a way and
a sequence in which these tasks should be performed.
A possible next step to help improve this model could be to
apply a tool that would assess the obsolescence status of a
certain equipment or component, since this could be one of the
reasons a certain equipment may be failing on a regular basis.
References
[1] Santos T, Silva FJG, Ramos SF, Campilho RDSG, Ferreira, LP. Asset
priority setting for maintenance management in the food industry. Procedia
Manuf 2019;38;1623-33. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.122.
[2] BS EN 13306:2010 - Maintenance - Maintenance terminology. British
Standard Institution, London, UK, 2010.
[3] Ben-Daya M, Duffuaa SO, Raouf A, Knezevic J, Ait-Kadi D. Handbook of
Maintenance Management and Engineering. London: Springer London;
2009. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-472-0.
[4] Ravitharan R. Safer Rail Operations: Reactive to Proactive Maintenance
Using State-of-the-Art Automated In-service Vehicle-Track Condition
Monitoring. 2018 Int Conf Intell Rail Transp (ICIRT), Intell Rail Transp
(ICIRT), 2018 Int Conf 2018:1–4. doi:10.1109/ICIRT.2018.8641587.
[5] Ferreira LL, Albano M, Silva J, Martinho D, Marreiros G, di Orio G, et al.
A pilot for proactive maintenance in industry 4.0. 2017 IEEE 13th Int Work
Fact Commun Syst (WFCS), Fact Commun Syst (WFCS), 2017 IEEE 13th
Int Work 2017:1–9. doi:10.1109/WFCS.2017.7991952.
[6] Ahmad N, Hossen J, Ali S. Improvement of overall equipment efficiency
of ring frame through total productive maintenance: a textile case. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2018;94:239–56. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0783-2.
[7] Morimoto A, Sato Y, Takata S. Continuous Improvement of Criteria for
Condition-based Maintenance by Means of Effects Evaluation of
1537
7
Treatments. Procedia CIRP 2017;61:293–8.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.266.
[8] Pinto GFL, Silva FJG, Campilho RDSG, Casais RB, Fernandes AJ,
Baptista A. Continuous improvement in maintenance: a case study in the
automotive industry involving Lean tools. Procedia Manuf 2019;38;1582-
91. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.127.
[9] IATF 16949:2016 - Quality management system requirements for
automotive production and relevant service parts organization, IATF –
International Automotive Task Force, 2016.
[10] Nakajima S, Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance,
Productivity Press, NY, U.S.A., 1988. ISBN: 13: 978-0915299232.
[11] Guariente P, Antoniolli I, Ferreira LP, Pereira T, Silva FJG. Implementing
autonumous maintenance in au automotive components manufacturer.
Procedia Manuf 2017;13:1128-34. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.174.
[12] Moreira A, Silva FJG, Correia AI, Pereira T, Ferreira LP, de Almeida F.
Cost reduction and quality improvement in the printing industry. Procedia
Manuf 2018;17:623-30. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.107.
[13] Santos RFL, Silva FJG, Gouveia RM, Campilho RDSG, Pereira MT,
Ferreira LP. The improvement of an APEX machine involved in the tire
manufacturing process. Procedia Manuf 2018;17:571-8. doi:
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.098.
[14] Silva FJG, Gouveia RM. Cleaner Production - Toward a better future,
Springer Nature, Switzetland, 2020. ISBN: 978-3-030-23164-4. doi:
10.1007/978-3-030-23165-1.
[15] Ferreira S, Silva FJG, Casais RB, Pereira MT, Ferreira LP. KPI
development and obsolescence management in industrial maintenance.
Procedia Manuf 2019;38;1427-35. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.145.
[16] BS EN 15341:2007 - Maintenance — Maintenance Key Performance
Indicators. British Standard Institution, London, UK, 2007.
[17] Prashar A. Adopting PDCA ( Plan-Do-Check-Act ) cycle for energy
optimization in energy-intensive SMEs. J Clean Prod 2017;145:277–93.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.068.
[18] Gonzalez E, Nano EM, Seyr H, Valldecabres L, Yurusen NY, Smolka U,
Muskulus M, Melero JJ. Key performance indicators for wind farm
operation and maintenance. Energy Procedia 2017;137:559-70. doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.385.
[19] Muchiri P, Pintelon L, Gelders L, Martin H. Development of maintenance
performance measurement framework and indicators. Int J Prod Econ
2011;131:295-302. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039.
[20] Silva AS, Medeiros CF, Vieira RK. Cleaner Production and PDCA Cycle:
Practical Application for Reducing the Cans Loss Index in a beverage
company. J Clean Prod 2017;150:324–38. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.033.
[21] Neyestani B. Seven Basic Tools Of Quality Control: The Appropriate
Quality Techniques For Solving Quality Problems In The Organizations
2017:1–10. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.400832.
[22] Rosa C, Silva FJG, Ferreira LP. Improving the quality and productiviti of
steel wire-rope assembly lines for the automotive industry. Procedia Manuf
2017;11:1135-42. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.214.
[23] Agostinho F, Silva TR, Almeida CMVB, Liu G, Giannetti BF,
Sustainability assessment procedure for operations and production
processes (SUAPRO). Sci Total Envir. 2019;685:1006-18. doi:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.261.
[24] Coulson‐Thomas CJ. Quality Training and Corporate Transformation.
vol. 1. 1993. doi:10.1108/09684879310045286.
[25] Applied Statistics Using SPSS, STATISTICA, MATLAB and R 2007.
[26] Tavares C, Silva FJG, Correia AI, Pereira T, Ferreira LP, de Almeida F.
Study on the optimization of the textile coloristic performing of the
bleaching process using pad-steam. Procedia Manuf 2018;17:758-65. doi:
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.126
[27] Neves P, Silva FJG, Ferreira LP, Pereira T, Gouveia RM, Pimentel C.
Implementing lean tools in the manufacturing process of trimming
products. Procedia Manuf 2018;17:696-704. doi:
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.119.
[28] Silva FJG, Campilho RDSG, Ferreira LP, Pereira MT. Establishing
guidelines to improve the high-pressure die casting process of complex
aesthetics parts. Transdisciplinary Engineering Methods for Social
Innovation of Industry 4.0. In: M. Peruzzini et al. (Eds.). IOS Press; 2018;
p. 887-896. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-898-3-887.